Supreme Court Overturns Trump-Era Ban on Bump Stocks

[impulse]

What seems to be missed here isn't the virtue of bump stocks.  It's the way unelected employees at the DOJ, ATF and other agencies are overstepping their remit and passing laws.  Which is for the legislature to decide.

 

I think bump stocks are stupid.   But there's a right way to pass laws.  ATF and DOJ edicts (by unelected bureaucrats) aren't the right way.

 

 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

What seems to be missed here isn't the virtue of bump stocks.  It's the way unelected employees at the DOJ, ATF and other agencies are overstepping their remit and passing laws.  Which is for the legislature to decide.

 

I think bump stocks are stupid.   But there's a right way to pass laws.  ATF and DOJ edicts (by unelected bureaucrats) aren't the right way.

 

 

False, The congressional history shows that Congress well understood that it was banning any devices that could turn a regular gun into a machine gun. The right wingers on the Supreme Court repeatedly use the common sense measure as a way to interpret terminology. In this case, since that wouldn't work, they resorted to a highly technical explanation to come up with a desired result:

 

"Congress banned machine guns almost a century ago through the National Firearms Act and, as Sotomayor pointed out, has since updated it to expand the definition of a machine gun to include “any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically … more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”...

“The majority looks to the internal mechanism that initiates fire, rather than the human act of the shooter’s initial pull, to hold that a ‘single function of the trigger’ means a reset of the trigger mechanism,” Sotomayor wrote. “Its interpretation requires six diagrams and an animation to decipher the meaning of the statutory text.” 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/sotomayor-dissent-supreme-court-bump-stocks-decision-textualism-hypocrisy.html

[Smokin Joe]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

"Congress banned machine guns almost a century ago through the National Firearms Act and, as Sotomayor pointed out, has since updated it to expand the definition of a machine gun to include “any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically … more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”...

“The majority looks to the internal mechanism that initiates fire, rather than the human act of the shooter’s initial pull, to hold that a ‘single function of the trigger’ means a reset of the trigger mechanism,” Sotomayor wrote. “Its interpretation requires six diagrams and an animation to decipher the meaning of the statutory text.” 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/sotomayor-dissent-supreme-court-bump-stocks-decision-textualism-hypocrisy.html

 

That is not correct. Fully automatic machine guns are legal in the USA. But they are very highly regulated and a PITA to buy and own. You just need to find a seller with a Class III license.

 

Here is an example of a Miami gun shop with machine guns for sale   https://dealernfa.com/

 

 

[spidermike007]

On 6/15/2024 at 2:22 PM, LosLobo said:

 

“We hold that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machine gun’ because it cannot fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger,’” Justice Thomas wrote.


Though it may not be a machine gun it can achieve a similar rate of fire and kill as many people.

Surely Thomas' technicality should not overrule the capability and therefore the danger of the bump stock.

 

 

Supreme Court Rejects Trump-Era Ban on Gun Bump Stocks - The New York Times (archive.md)

Thomas is a man who possesses a stunning lack of vision. That he is a supreme court justice says alot about Bush Sr. and the US. Not exactly the brightest mind on the court. 

[Yellowtail]

Banning bump-stocks was ridiculous. 

 

I thought it was a good decision. It's not the court's fault that bump-stocks do not meet the government's definition of automatic. That there were three people on the courts that felt that bump-stocks did satisfy the definition is concerning, albeit not surprising.

 

Change the definition of automatic to include devices such as bump-stocks and they, along with similar devices will be illegal. But the left does not want to solve anything. They need guns as another issue they can use in the election and as an excuse to pack the court. 

 

How many lives are we thinking the ban saved?

 

The vast majority of gun related deaths in the US are from handguns, "assault style" rifles are a small percentage. 

 

Why does the left never want to focus on enforcing existing laws? 

 

 

 

 

[impulse]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

False, The congressional history shows that Congress well understood that it was banning any devices that could turn a regular gun into a machine gun. The right wingers on the Supreme Court repeatedly use the common sense measure as a way to interpret terminology. In this case, since that wouldn't work, they resorted to a highly technical explanation to come up with a desired result:

 

"Congress banned machine guns almost a century ago through the National Firearms Act and, as Sotomayor pointed out, has since updated it to expand the definition of a machine gun to include “any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically … more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”...

“The majority looks to the internal mechanism that initiates fire, rather than the human act of the shooter’s initial pull, to hold that a ‘single function of the trigger’ means a reset of the trigger mechanism,” Sotomayor wrote. “Its interpretation requires six diagrams and an animation to decipher the meaning of the statutory text.” 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/sotomayor-dissent-supreme-court-bump-stocks-decision-textualism-hypocrisy.html

 

Interesting that you'd choose a dissent opinion to support your claim.

 

You may agree with her.  Hell, I may agree with her (I don't).  But the majority of the justices don't.

 

If the 2nd Amendment was absolute, machine guns would be legal for everyone that can own any gun.  But they're not.  Because Congress made them illegal.  Not the ATF or the DOJ. 

 

As I stated, I think bump stocks are stupid.  But that's not for me, nor for unelected bureaucrats to decide whether they're legal.

 

 

[placeholder]

55 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Interesting that you'd choose a dissent opinion to support your claim.

 

You may agree with her.  Hell, I may agree with her (I don't).  But the majority of the justices don't.

 

If the 2nd Amendment was absolute, machine guns would be legal for everyone that can own any gun.  But they're not.  Because Congress made them illegal.  Not the ATF or the DOJ. 

 

As I stated, I think bump stocks are stupid.  But that's not for me, nor for unelected bureaucrats to decide whether they're legal.

 

 

Yes what an amazing coincidence that the majority of justices don't agree with Sotomayor. Clearly nothing to do with the fact that all six of these justices were vetted and approved by the Federalist society. There's no way that their previous opinions on second amendment matters influence their nomination of the Court by Donald Trump.

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Yes what an amazing coincidence that the majority of justices don't agree with Sotomayor. Clearly nothing to do with the fact that all six of these justices were vetted and approved by the Federalist society. There's no way that their previous opinions on second amendment matters influence their nomination of the Court by Donald Trump.

The ATF's definition of automatic is clearly not met using bump-stops. 

 

You want leftist justices to legislate from the bench, so you do not care about the definition. 

[amexpat]

11 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

The ATF's definition of automatic is clearly not met using bump-stops. 

 

You want leftist justices to legislate from the bench, so you do not care about the definition. 

As you do not care about the consequences. 

[Yellowtail]

9 hours ago, amexpat said:

As you do not care about the consequences. 

I care about the consequences, that's why I want judges to judge, and legislators to legislate.

 

It's you that does not care about the consequences. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 6/16/2024 at 7:35 PM, spidermike007 said:

Thomas is a man who possesses a stunning lack of vision. That he is a supreme court justice says alot about Bush Sr. and the US. Not exactly the brightest mind on the court. 

Their job is to uphold the law as it is written. Do you want them to interpret it according to their political bias?

 

If bump stocks need to be made illegal then congress should pass a law making it so.

Take it up with your congressman.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, amexpat said:

As you do not care about the consequences. 

Take it up with your congressman then.

[Yellowtail]

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Their job is to uphold the law as it is written. Do you want them to interpret it according to their political bias?

 

If bump stocks need to be made illegal then congress should pass a law making it so.

Take it up with your congressman.

As long as the judges are leftists, then yes, that is what he wants. 

 

 

[spidermike007]

59 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Their job is to uphold the law as it is written. Do you want them to interpret it according to their political bias?

 

If bump stocks need to be made illegal then congress should pass a law making it so.

Take it up with your congressman.

They did interpret it according to their own political bias. That is exactly what happened. 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

They did interpret it according to their own political bias. That is exactly what happened. 

The three dissenters did. The others considered the actual definition, which is there to read, and which bump-stocks clearly do not satisfy. 

 

Just like an electric drill with a cam-lobe you could fit into the trigger-guard and fire it really fast would not satisfy the definition. 

 

The definition is the problem, not the court. 

 

How many lives do you think banning bump-stocks saved? 

 

 

[KhunLA]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

How many lives do you think banning bump-stocks saved? 

Possibly the opposite, as I understand it, the bump stock makes it hard to hit your target, if not an experienced shooter.  Las Vegas guy is a testament to that.  Low kill count might have been the result of using a bump stock, if any of that is true.

[Yellowtail]

16 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Possibly the opposite, as I understand it, the bump stock makes it hard to hit your target, if not an experienced shooter.  Las Vegas guy is a testament to that.  Low kill count might have been the result of using a bump stock, if any of that is true.

It is a toy for gun enthusiasts. Far and away, most gun deaths in the US are related to handguns. Like all issues, the left really does not care about gun deaths, they care about keeping the issue going. 

 

 

[Tug]

13 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Possibly the opposite, as I understand it, the bump stock makes it hard to hit your target, if not an experienced shooter.  Las Vegas guy is a testament to that.  Low kill count might have been the result of using a bump stock, if any of that is true.

That sir is one sick statement…..I’m sure the founders had no idea how efficient guns would become they certainly would have adjusted the 2ond amendment accordingly.this ruling of the supreme court’s is a travesty vote blue give the congress and senate the majority nessary to stop the slaughter…….over 50 dead and you come up with a low kill count comment uhhhh!!!

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Tug said:

That sir is one sick statement…..I’m sure the founders had no idea how efficient guns would become they certainly would have adjusted the 2ond amendment accordingly.this ruling of the supreme court’s is a travesty vote blue give the congress and senate the majority nessary to stop the slaughter…….over 50 dead and you come up with a low kill count comment uhhhh!!!

The founders (who the left generally have contempt for) allowed for the citizenry to have the most sophisticated weapons of their day. 

 

And had Congress envisioned that millions of illegal aliens would be flooding across the borders and having anchor-babies they certainly would have adjusted the 14th Amendment accordingly, yes? 

 

There is a process for amending the Constitution, and if it regards something people want, it would not be difficult. 

 

Using the court to circumvent the law is just kicking the can down the road. 

[KhunLA]

3 hours ago, Tug said:

That sir is one sick statement…..I’m sure the founders had no idea how efficient guns would become they certainly would have adjusted the 2ond amendment accordingly.this ruling of the supreme court’s is a travesty vote blue give the congress and senate the majority nessary to stop the slaughter…….over 50 dead and you come up with a low kill count comment uhhhh!!!

Obviously my comment went way over your head.  You obviously haven't a clue what the 2nd Amendment is for.

[KhunLA]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

It is a toy for gun enthusiasts. Far and away, most gun deaths in the US are related to handguns. Like all issues, the left really does not care about gun deaths, they care about keeping the issue going. 

[Tug]

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Obviously my comment went way over your head.  You obviously haven't a clue what the 2nd Amendment is for.

I own guns I know how to use them I do understand what the second amendment is and what it is for.your  comment was to put it mildly was offensive in the extreme civilians do not (need)semi auto long guns nor the attachments to make them full auto period all stop 🛑 

[KhunLA]

4 hours ago, Tug said:

I own guns I know how to use them I do understand what the second amendment is and what it is for.your  comment was to put it mildly was offensive in the extreme civilians do not (need)semi auto long guns nor the attachments to make them full auto period all stop 🛑 

Can only assume you think we live in a perfect, fair, free world, where things never go wrong and humans aren't the most disgusting animal inhabiting it.

 

You really don't know what the 2nd Amendment is for then ... BYE BYE

Edited June 18 by KhunLA

[0ffshore360]

Perhaps the Supreme Justices have foreseen the need for mass killing capacity come shortly after a vote count conclusion in November ?

Let the Civil War recommence !

[Tug]

12 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

You really don't know what the 2nd Amendment is for then ... BYE BYE

If you are having some fantasy about protecting yourself against a government run amok you and anyone else thinking the same would be slaughtered period all stop 🛑 the government has the big stuff

[KhunLA]

17 minutes ago, Tug said:

If you are having some fantasy about protecting yourself against a government run amok you and anyone else thinking the same would be slaughtered period all stop 🛑 the government has the big stuff

In case you don't know, generals don't take the same oath as enlisted grunts, and do NOT need to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief (president).  Simply preserve the 'Constitutional' rights of it's citizens.  

 

All these divisive, distracting 'what ifs' as if they would actually happen ... but ... in the slight chance one might, from foreign or domestic, it's nice to have an armed population.

 

Why the 2nd Amendment will never be changed.

[amexpat]

REMINDER
     A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of every nut to keep and bear a weapon more powerful than the entire British army, shall not be infringed.

[Yellowtail]

7 hours ago, Tug said:

If you are having some fantasy about protecting yourself against a government run amok you and anyone else thinking the same would be slaughtered period all stop 🛑 the government has the big stuff

Why do you say that? Do you think they are going to bomb you? 

 

If you think people are complaining about collateral damage in Gaza, wait until it's thirty kids at a school in Santa Monica.